Borexino Results on Neutrinos from the Sun and Earth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is a good overview of the results of the famous Borexino experiment. This article will be very useful to readers interested in this topic. All results are brought together. Moreover, special attention is paid to the latest results (geoneutrinos). The article is well written and well logically structured. A lot of very useful information about experiment are presented. I have only one remark for section 3.5.2. Neutrino magnetic moment:
It is indicated that «...The limit on the effective value can be translated into a limit for magnetic moments of individual flavors, according to the measured values of flavor oscillation parameters». And it was really done in Borexino paper [6]. For greater clarity, these individual limits should be quoted and compared with the best previous limits.
The paper can be published in the Universe.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the positive review. We adopted the suggested changes. The Borexino limits on NMM for individual flavors have been quoted explicitly and have been compared with best previous limits.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review Report on
Ms. ID: “universe-1256798-peer-review-v1”, submitted to “Universe/MDPI”
Title: “Borexino results on neutrinos from the Sun and Earth”
By: S. Kumaran, L. Ludhova, O. Penek, and G. Settanta
Comments
This is a review article in which Authors discuss comprehensively the measurements performed at the BOREXINO experiment, a large volume detector aiming to investigate low energy neutrino spectroscopy. This well known extremely sensitive experiment is running during the last two decades underground (at the LNGS laboratory, Gran Sasso, Italy) with main goals to execute real-time measurement for the individual components of (i) the solar neutrino spectrum (continuum and monochromatic one, e.g. mono-energetic 7Be neutrinos), and (ii) the Earth neutrino (Geoneutrino) spectrum.
A review article highlighting the large volume Borexino detector’s structure, the methods of data taking and the analyses as well as the discussion of the results obtained (in conjunction with the interpretation of the neutrino properties in the low-energy range and in connection to the solar physics and geophysics), is of great interest for the research community. From that point of view, the article deserves publication in the Journal “Universe”. Even though the present article is well written and the presentation of the data obtained through the main Borexino measurements performed are well organized, I find, however, that some weak points of this manuscript must be improved before I recommend the paper for publication. I summarize some of them below.
1). A number of other rather similar large-volume detectors (real time detectors for low-energy neutrinos) operated and currently ongoing include in their goals also studies of low-energy neutrinos within neutrino physics and neutrino astronomy. Some of them are already mentioned in this article for the sake of comparison of their measurements with Borexino results as e.g. Fig. 12. Such experiments (Kamland, TEXONO, SNO, and others) should shortly be discussed at the beginning (in the Introduction or Sect. 2) of the review article and must be cited there. Also next generation experiments of Borexino may be mentioned at the end (Conclusions and Outlook Section).
2). Several theoretical groups of particle, astro-nuclear physics, astrophysics, etc. make extensive use of the Borexino data to constrain particle physics model parameters. Such theoretical works should be highlighted and discussed in conjunction with the Borexino measurements (preferably in the Introduction). For example the non-standard neutrino-matter interactions, extensively mentioned in this article [see e.g. J.HEP 1907(2019)103], must be cited in the Introduction that is beneficial for the present review article.
3). The fact that only seven works from the references list of the article are cited in the Introduction (all of them Borexino Collaboration articles), in my opinion, is a rather serious weak point of the article that should be well improved. Otherwise, the review article would mostly look like as an internal report of the Borexino Collaboration and not as an experimental article addressed, in general, to young researcher (e.g. PhD Studs. and PostDocs) from which they may understand the physics extracted from solar neutrinos, Geoneutrinos and electromagnetic neutrino properties (as the NMM).
4). The reference list of the article should be enriched with (i) theoretical works on NSI Models, (cite some, e.g. in sub-subsection 3.5.1) and works extracting constraints on the NMM, (ii) works discussing low-energy neutrino measurements of other experiments (Kamland, TEXONO, SNO, etc.), (iv) Sun’s metallicity (note that references mentioned in this report are easily found examples, so authors are not obliged to cite them).
5). The authors may consider the case of adding a short comment on the solar neutrino-floor that is a well known connection of the accurate measurements of the solar neutrino spectra achieved with Borexino detector with the experiments of direct detection of Cold Dark Matter candidates for which solar neutrinos are irreducible background (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6031362).
6). Many titles of subsections, sub-sub-sections and paragraphs are too short, authors should add in the majority of cases 1-3 (or more) words where needed. On the other hand, I should stress that I agree fully with the long Figure and Table captions utilized by the Authors which are very useful for the readers.
In conclusion, the present manuscript must be improved in a number of ways (I suggested some above) before I recommend it for publication in the Journal Universe. The moderate revision refers to the first two and the last two Sections (also the Reference list). In the main body of the article only minor changes are required.
Examples of minor points
– In Table 1: Internal ==> Internal Background rates, in Table 2: Cosmogenic ==> Cosmogenic Background.
– L-1173: Is it probable that some student may take the footnote index as a power of μΒ to the 6?
– L-1162: Add citation(s).
– Authors may, alternatively, use the nomenclature: Section 1, Section 2, ..., Subsection 1.1, Subsection 1.2,…, Sub-sub-section 1.1.1, Sub-sub-section 1.1.2.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thanks the reviewer for his constructive comments. We have carefully considered all of them and performed the changes following most of the suggestions. In the attached file, we paste the reviewers’ comments and in green we provide our answers. In a few cases when we preferred not follow the recommendations, we describe our reasoning.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the paper the latest Borexino results on neutrino from the Sun and the Earth are presented in a clear way, focusing on the key elements on the analysis and on the discussion and the interpretation of the results. The overall content is well-presented. In principle it could be published as it is. While reading the manuscript, I found a few points, which could be considered:
- line 188: It is clear but it could be clearer.
- line 503: "are" is repeted
- line 704: a space is missing between 10C and (
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the positive comments. We have followed the advice, removed the repetitive ‘are’, added the requested space (unifying this style also in few other cases), and updated the title that was previously in line 188 (now line 209).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Review Report on
Ms. ID: “universe-1256798-peer-review-v2”, submitted to “Universe/MDPI”
Title: “Borexino results on neutrinos from the Sun and Earth”
By: S. Kumaran, L. Ludhova, O. Penek, and G. Settanta
Final Reviewer’s comment/recommendation
The present manuscript constitutes a well improved version of the above referenced review article. In the revised version Authors have performed comprehensive improvements on the initially submitted manuscript according to the suggestions/comments/ of all Reviewers. Authors have also inserted the suggested changes/corrections in a satisfactory way and, in addition, they have included new material and new references.
After these improvements, the new version meets the high standards of the Journal “Universe”. Moreover, the present form of the above review article advances, in my opinion, the knowledge within the relevant research field for the entire scientific community. So, I am pleased to recommend its publication in the Journal “Universe”.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
